DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

[1]  Jatinder Kumar son of Sh. Mathura Dass, C/o M/s J.K. Computech, SCO No. 1096-97, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22/B, Chandigarh.

[2]  Mohan Lal Doomra, S/o Sh. Resham Lal Doomra, SCO No. 1096-97, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22/B, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainants

Vs

[1]  SDO Electricity, Sub Division No.1, Sector 23, U.T. Chandigarh.

[2]  Arun Gupta s/o Om Prakash Gupta.

[3]  Shallu Gupta w/o Arun Gupta.

Both residents of House No. 325, Sector 44/A, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Ms. Anju Arora, Counsel for Complainant.

None for Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 & 3 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.        The instant complaint relates to an electric connection issued by Opposite Party No.1 being used by the Complainants along with other consumers as tenants of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.  

          Briefly stated, the Complainants are the tenant in SCO No. 1096-97, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, from the past five years and are carrying on the business of computers under the name and style of J.K. Computech/ R.J. Computers. As per the Complainants, there are 04 tenants on the second floor of the building and all tenants have sub-meters. All tenants pay the electricity bill to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 for onward submission to Opposite Party No.1 on the basis of the reading in the sub-meter. The Complainants have stated that an Airtel Exchange/ Tower has also been installed on the top of the building and is also getting electricity from the same meter. The Complainants have stated that as the landlords of the premises (Opposite Parties No.2 & 3) did not pay electricity charges to Opposite Party No.1, the Department of Electricity disconnected power in the month of April, 2010. Also, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 had been charging service-tax from the Complainants on rent every month; whereas, they do not have any service tax number. Hence, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have misappropriated the service tax collected from the Complainants. It has further been contended that due to supply of electricity to the Airtel Exchange/ Tower, the electricity multiplies many times. It has also been stated that Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 wish to evict the Complainants and other tenants from the premises illegally and forcibly. It has also been pleaded that when the Complainants contacted Opposite Party No.1, they were informed that only one connection is allowed for every floor. Hence, the application for electricity connection by the Complainants to Opposite Party No.1 was refused. In this regard, the Complainant has filed an application to the Sr. Supdt. of Police, U.T. Chandigarh. It is also stated in the complaint that the Complainants have approached the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 a number of times for heeding to their request as they are suffering heavy financial losses due to disconnection of electricity. The Complainants have alleged that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have connived with each other and disconnected the electricity connection.   

          The Complainants have, thus, filed the present complaint with the following prayer:-

“That the application be accepted and the electricity connection may kindly be restored for the SCO No.1096-97, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh [in which the Complainants are running their computer shops] in the interest of justice;

OR

It is further prayed that the O.P. be directed to award compensation and damages on account of harassment, tension, mental agony in tune of Rs.50,000/- to each Complainant, for loss of business of the Complainant Rs.50,000/- to each Complainant due to deficiency in service and its unfair trade practice and exploitation of the consumers. It is also prayed that O.P. be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses;

OR

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may kindly be granted in favour of Complainants.”

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking their version of the case.

          On the next date of hearing i.e. 03.06.2011, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared and the following directions were given:-

“In the meantime OP-1 is directed to restore the electricity connection of the Complainants on payment of entire bill within 24 hours of the deposit of the bill. However, the Complainant shall have a right to recover the said amount from the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in case it has paid the amount to them.”

          Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 15.07.2010 for service of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. Meanwhile, a Revision Petition bearing No. RP/6/10 was filed before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2010 and the case came back for further proceedings to this Forum. Inadvertently, the case was fixed for arguments and was reserved for orders. On perusal of the file, it was found that no orders had been passed with regard to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. So, in the interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate vide order dated 10.04.2012, to issue fresh summons to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, directing them to appear before this Forum on 27.04.2012. Hence, fresh notices were issued to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. However, despite number of opportunities and issuance of dasti notices none appeared on their behalf and eventually, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte on 02.11.2012.  

3.        Opposite Party No.1 in reply has denied for want of knowledge about the lease agreement between the Complainant and Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3.  They have stated that the connection has been disconnected for want of payment of bill amounting to Rs.56,898/-. All other paragraphs which relate to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have also been denied for want of knowledge. It has also been submitted by Opposite Party No.1 that as the connection had been disconnected due to non-payment of bill; as per the request of the Complainant after depositing a part of payment of Rs.20,000/- on 30.07.2010, the electric supply of the consumer had been restored vide office sundry job order No. 57/70 dated 30.7.2010. Opposite Party No.1 has also stated that no electricity connection against the premises could be given while outstanding defaulting amount still existed. Opposite Party No.1 has further stated that they have acted according to the rules & regulations and there is no fault on their part. Also, only one electricity connection can be released on one floor as per the rules of the department. Opposite Party No.1 has therefore, prayed that the Complainants be asked to deposit the full amount of outstanding dues of electricity and the complaint be dismissed with costs. 

4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.        Since none appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 on 05.11.2012, therefore, we proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 already ex-parte.

6.        We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have perused the record.  

7.        It is evident from the order dated 03.06.2010 and the reply filed by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainants had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the outstanding bill amount with the Opposite Party No.1 through E-Sampark. The complete bill due has not been placed on record by either of the parties. Hence, the actual outstanding amount, if any, is not known. However, it is evident that the Complainants are now enjoying the usage of electricity after restoration of the connection by Opposite Party No.1 on the directions of this Forum. The grievance of the Complainants and their prayer in the complaint is for restoration of electric connection. This has already been done.  The Complainants are tenants of Opposite Party No.2 and 3. The grouse of the Complainants qua Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 however justified cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum, as being tenants they are not consumers qua them. It is settled proposition of law that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.        No specific prayer has been made by the Complainants against Opposite Party No.1 for any damages. Even at the time of arguments, no such prayer against Opposite Party No.1 was made.  

9.        Hence, in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the complaint. The Complainants are advised to make regular payments towards electricity usage/ bills to enjoy uninterrupted supply. No costs.

10.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07^th November, 2012.                                             

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”